Correctness of computer games...

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13841
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Correctness of computer games...

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 16 Oct 2002 16:07

What do you think - does it matter to you if computer games are over the edge on some details?
What I mean is - do you mind for example that RTCW has zombies (like the original game)? Or are you jhust in it for the fun?

Christian

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9120
Joined: 07 Sep 2002 00:46
Location: Sweden

Post by Daniel L » 16 Oct 2002 16:30

I'm very keen at getting all the details right. I see games like Return to Castle wolfenstein and Battlefield 1942 as on the edge to revisionist. Altough I don't care much about return to castle wolfenstein since they don't claim it to be about world war two- just an alternative history. I enjoyed playing the game altough when the monsters scared the heck out of me. :D

My favourite games are the close combat series. I want games to be exact when it comes to details.

regards

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 16 Oct 2002 17:46

I'd have to agree.
#1 in turn-based - Panzer General 3D Assault and Panzer General 2
#1 in RTS (real-time-strategy) - Close Combat series with the CC3 mods being the best.
#1 in FPS (first-person-shooters) - Hidden and Dangerous

Sudden Strike is awful when it comes to reality and Axis and Allies covers too broad of a scale to be judged.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 16 Oct 2002 20:12

For RTS, Commandos also woths to be mentioned IMO.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13841
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 16 Oct 2002 23:21

Well, I think that the game itself is more important. A realistic games doesn't have to be a correct game.

RTCW is a lot like the original games, and this is a major bonus. Where else would you get monsters? ;)

I think that MOH-AA is worse - you have to shoot the enemy a bizillion times, and all you get is dust :?

Christian

User avatar
T.R.Searle
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: 27 May 2002 23:31
Location: Canada

Post by T.R.Searle » 16 Oct 2002 23:45

I have to agree there

T.R.Searle :)

User avatar
Ando
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 Sep 2002 05:10
Location: Brisbane

Post by Ando » 17 Oct 2002 01:21

I didnt like MOH because it is made for 13 year olds and lacks realistic damage. It just didnt seem right attacking the beachhead without any blood.

I also didnt like how in Battlefield 1942 the correct weapons arent issued to the players of different teams.

I guess I like it too realistic and the games are made to sell, thats why no blood (broader market).

Ando

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13841
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 17 Oct 2002 18:18

I saw some game with an St.G. 44 in Africa?!? (battlefront 1942?)

Christian

User avatar
paddywhack
Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 08 May 2002 08:54
Location: dublin ireland

Post by paddywhack » 18 Oct 2002 10:09

charlie do you like the close combat series which one? for a time there i was something like 126 at it out of 2000 on a ladder thing on the net? cc3 was ok cc4 asnt great and cc5 hhhhhmmmm :?

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”